is this suicide?

[photosynthesis]

so... this is kind of a sad story, but here goes...

My best friend Peter (who died last year) really struggled with the temptation to end his life. He said it never would have been that way if his father didn't make this choice...

So my friend's father was diabetic, in his early 50's, and had been on dialysis for a few years due to end-stage renal failure. He had a wife, a daughter and a son that he was supporting, and a career as a lawyer. While the illness he had made life difficult, he certainly had a lot to live for. He ended up making the decision to end dialysis and "die naturally." Legally, the man had a right to refuse medical treatment, and he signed a form saying that he wanted to end dialysis and that he would accept the consequences. Now, a person with 100% kidney failure cannot survive without dialysis, and the man ended up dying over the course of about a week.

Peter was also diabetic and had been on dialysis for a long time as well... Seeing his father choose to end dialysis always made him wonder why he put up with his own life. Thankfully, Peter never chose to throw in the towel and he persevered to the end... he later became Catholic, and it was his illness that took him at the age of 21.

my question is... is choosing to stop dialysis, or another lifesaving medical treatment, suicide? Peter's dad's death certificate didn't say "suicide," it said uremia or toxemia or some medical term... But Peter always said his dad committed suicide, since he made a conscious choice to end the medical treatment. Other people in his family claimed that it was not suicide, since he was "allowing the disease to take its course."

What do you think? Was it suicide?

[Aloysius]

you are not obliged to seek extraordinary means of sustaining your life. you can refuse extreme medical treatment. the line is often really hard to draw.

something like food and water, even through a feeding tube, is always ordinary means of sustaining people's lives, thus that cannot morally be refused.t

dialasis... I really don't know how to classify that. the line is really hard to draw, but if something is viewed as extraordinary means of sustaining your life it is not a sinful action to refuse it even if the double-effect of refusing it will be your death.

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Nov 10 2005, 02:11 AM']dialasis... I really don't know how to classify that.  the line is really hard to draw, but if something is viewed as extraordinary means of sustaining your life it is not a sinful action to refuse it even if the double-effect of refusing it will be your death.
[right][snapback]784677[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Dialysis is a way of cleansing wastes and toxins from the bloodstream when a person's kidneys fail. Usually the kidneys just do that, and the toxins/wastes come out in the form of urine. so dialysis is basically a process where a machine does the peeing for you. at least that's how Peter described it to me.

he spent many hours in dialysis, it takes a lot of time. however, a lot of people can be on dialysis and still lead relatively normal lives. his father was still able to continue his law practice and support his family.

I'm not sure if it's suicide, but I think the decision he made was a bad one, because it set a bad example for his son, who also had the same medical problems, along with several other ones. Not to mention the fact that he abandoned his wife and children.

[philothea]

I'd call dialysis extraordinary, and therefore optional. Anything that ghastly expensive has [i]got[/i] to be extraordinary.

But then I hate hospitals, so I might be biased. It's certainly not a clear-cut suicide, like failing to take a simple medicine, or starving yourself.

[photosynthesis]

I don't think money was an issue. Peter said that Social Security often covers what health insurance does not cover, and that was the case for their family.

I don't like hospitals either. Peter did the kind where you don't have to go to the hospital though, although it involves having a tube in your belly.

[Aloysius]

it's not about whether it's about money or not, it's about whether it's extra-ordinary or not. It seems extra-ordinary to me.. I don't know though...

[filiusMariae]

I would have to agree with others in saying that dialysis is extraordinary means. The only ones that I know are not extraordinary are food and water.

[beatty07]

Another crucial consideration is the man's motive. Refusal of extraordinary means is okay, but not for all reasons. If your disease and the treatment recieved add up to a lot of suffering and hardship, and you'd really rather just go meet your God, then extraordinary means can be declined.

It's a completely different thing if you're fed up with life in general, or are depressed for other reasons, or all the other motivations that go into suicide. That's not an okay reason.

I hate to speculate knowing so little, but it does seem strange that a father and husband would consider dialysis an unacceptable price to pay to prevent widowing his wife and leaving his kids fatherless. I suppose it might depend on how crippling his condition was. Anyway, hope this helps a little.

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Nov 10 2005, 02:51 AM']it's not about whether it's about money or not, it's about whether it's extra-ordinary or not.  It seems extra-ordinary to me.. I don't know though...
[right][snapback]784697[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
here are some websites about dialysis:
[url="http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1998/198_dial.html"]http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1998/198_dial.html[/url]
[url="http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003421.htm"]http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003421.htm[/url]

[quote name='beatty07' date='Nov 10 2005, 10:59 AM']Another crucial consideration is the man's motive.  Refusal of extraordinary means is okay, but not for all reasons.  If your disease and the treatment recieved add up to a lot of suffering and hardship, and you'd really rather just go meet your God, then extraordinary means can be declined.

It's a completely different thing if you're fed up with life in general, or are depressed for other reasons, or all the other motivations that go into suicide.  That's not an okay reason.

I hate to speculate knowing so little, but it does seem strange that a father and husband would consider dialysis an unacceptable price to pay to prevent widowing his wife and leaving his kids fatherless.  I suppose it might depend on how crippling his condition was.  Anyway, hope this helps a little.
[right][snapback]784778[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
yeah, I think the intent matters a lot. I know that my friend's father was suffering. Dialysis patients tend to feel tired all of the time and I know that trying to support his family as a lawyer AND do hemodialysis was very taxing. Peter said he would spend most of the 4-5 hours he'd spend in dialysis doing legal research even though it was hard for him to stay conscious. His illness was somewhat debilitating, but he was still able to work and he was nowhere near as sick as his son, who had the same illnesses along with some other ones.

I'm not sure how depressed or hopeless he felt. Men tend not to be as open about depression and emotions in general as women. It's possible that he was very depressed but never said anything about it.

[cmotherofpirl]

I think only God is qualified to decide this question.

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Nov 10 2005, 05:54 PM']I think only God is qualified to decide this question.
[right][snapback]785123[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Of course! However, most of the time He lets the Magisterium know what He thinks This is a decision that real people often have to make and I'm sure the Church has something wise to say about it.

[photosynthesis]

bump.

[StatingTheObvious]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Nov 10 2005, 06:54 PM']I think only God is qualified to decide this question.
[right][snapback]785123[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
oxygenfromgreenleaves, i think the Mother was trying to say that only God can know for sure what the motives situations are. i don't think the church has ever said somebody's gone to hell. it does say stuff like 'if you do X for Y reasons, your going to hell.' only God knows for sure and can judge somebody on the Y reasons. chill out dude and accept the fact you can't know for sure until you get to his new neighborhood and truy to look him up.

[toledo_jesus]

I don't think it was suicide. Only the Father and Peter's dad know...

[MichaelFilo]

In all fairness what I view as ordinary is anything which would have been providable for someone since the beggening of time. A dialysis is not something that was available in the garden of Eden. Food was, water was, oxygen was. No one, no matter what their reason, is morally bound to try to save their life.

Everyone is morally bound to not take their life.

Whatever the reason for not taking dialysis treatment, even if it were depression, cannot be called morally incorrect. Why? Because dialysis is extraordinary. Depression is something seperate and evne if it wer ethe cause to stop receiving treatment cannot be connected with suicide since the man was as good as dead had it not beed for extraordinary means anyway.

Whether it was "right" or "wrong" to leave his faimly is something that is not of mortal proportions because he did nothing but let nature run her course and stopped trying to stop her.

God bless,
Mikey

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='StatingTheObvious' date='Nov 12 2005, 08:30 AM']oxygenfromgreenleaves,  i think the Mother was trying to say that only God can know for sure what the motives situations are.  i don't think the church has ever said somebody's gone to hell.  it does say stuff like 'if you do X for Y reasons, your going to hell.'  only God knows for sure and can judge somebody on the Y reasons.  chill out dude and accept the fact you can't know for sure until you get to his new neighborhood and truy to look him up.
[right][snapback]786326[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
My question wasn't, "did he go to hell?" it was, "did he commit suicide?"

I know that you can never really guage the mercy of God, and who knows what he said when he met the Father when he died. There are many people who are living on dialysis, and I know that Peter struggled with the question, "is it morally licit to stop dialysis, or am I bound to accept the suffering?"

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='Nov 12 2005, 11:30 AM']dialysis is not something that was available in the garden of Eden. Food was, water was, oxygen was. No one, no matter what their reason, is morally bound to try to save their life.
[right][snapback]786389[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yeah, but Adam and Eve never got sick. Their kidneys worked just fine. There are a heck of a lot of things out there that were never available in the garden of Eden. insulin, surgery, any medicine, dialysis, chemotherapy, radiation, antibiotics... and that was OK, because no one in the garden of Eden got sick!

By that logic, no one would ever have to have any medical treatment whatsoever.

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='Nov 12 2005, 11:30 AM']Whatever the reason for not taking dialysis treatment, even if it were depression, cannot be called morally incorrect. Why? Because dialysis is extraordinary. Depression is something seperate and evne if it wer ethe cause to stop receiving treatment cannot be connected with suicide since the man was as good as dead had it not beed for extraordinary means anyway.

Whether it was "right" or "wrong" to leave his faimly is something that is not of mortal proportions because he did nothing but let nature run her course and stopped trying to stop her.
[right][snapback]786389[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
"Good as dead?" I'm sorry, but I can't accept that.

if his parents decided that Peter was "good as dead," when his kidneys failed, and didn't put him on dialysis, then he would have died at the age of 3 and I never would have had the opportunity to know him. He was my best friend. If he were alive and healthy right now, I have no doubt that we would be engaged and planning a wedding.

I don't think anyone is "good as dead."

[philothea]

Still can't fathom having [i]your blood removed from your body[/i] and pumped through extremely expensive and high-tech filters not being unquestionably extraordinary!

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='philothea' date='Nov 12 2005, 02:07 PM']Still can't fathom having [i]your blood removed from your body[/i] and pumped through extremely expensive and high-tech filters not being unquestionably extraordinary!
[right][snapback]786474[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
yeah, I guess so... Peter hated hemodialysis. He did the other kind. His dad did hemo, though.

I know that the treatment was readily available for them, and that it wasn't putting strain on their finances because they had health insurance (which they lost when his father died.)

[MichaelFilo]

I always come across as being incrediably cruel and emotionless; sometimes I fear it is because I am. Either way, let me at least try to clarify.

What I meant by the garden of Eden was any time prior to the extraordinary medical advances we had today, so I figured the start of it all would be nice. I still think it's not a shoddy example since Adam and Eve got all that they ordinarly needed to live. Anything that was not provided there maybe considered extraordinary.

To quote:

"By that logic, no one would ever have to have any medical treatment whatsoever."

I agree, no one is ever bound morally to receive any medicine. All medicine is extraordinary; all surgery is extraordinary; all means of completing body functions without using the intended body part is extraordinary. (Terri Schiavo should immediatly pop into your head. I must contend that receiving food is ordinary, using a tube to do so is not. However, in her case there was no visible reason to imagine that she wanted to cease to be treated through a tube.)


When I say "good as dead" I do not mean their life is forfieted, I mean that at any given time the disease may overcome and destroy them by natural means. That is, they are living on using extraordinary measures and thus their life is solely depended on those measures. That is what I mean by "good as dead", not that they are worthless.


I'm sorry if I've offended you. I probably am not the proper type of person to comment on such an issue. I think that my influences have desensitized me too much. Please forgive me if I have said anything wrong.

God bless,
Mikey

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='Nov 12 2005, 06:40 PM']I agree, no one is ever bound morally to receive any medicine. All medicine is extraordinary; all surgery is extraordinary; all means of completing body functions without using the intended body part is extraordinary. (Terri Schiavo should immediatly pop into your head. I must contend that receiving food is ordinary, using a tube to do so is not. However, in her case there was no visible reason to imagine that she wanted to cease to be treated through a tube.)
When I say  "good as dead" I do not mean their life is forfieted, I mean that at any given time the disease may overcome and destroy them by natural means. That is, they are living on using extraordinary measures and thus their life is solely depended on those measures. That is what I mean by "good as dead", not that they are worthless.

I'm sorry if I've offended you. I probably am not the proper type of person to comment on such an issue. I think that my influences have desensitized me too much. Please forgive me if I have said anything wrong.
[right][snapback]786689[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I guess I can see your point. Don't worry about offending me, I forgive you...

As far as feeding tubes go, I remember someone was saying something about cost being an issue, and that dialysis was expensive. After awhile, Peter suffered from severe nausea, and he was unable to eat without vomiting. So his doctors decided to put a feeding tube in. As far as cost was concerned, health insurance did not cover the cost of his liquid food, and it was actually more expensive for his family to feed him than it was to give him peritoneal dialysis.

also, if all surgery or medical treatments were considered extraordinary means, then what about the procedure to implant a gastrostomy/jejeunostomy tube, or to insert an nasogastric or nasojejeunal tube? Food and water are ordinary, but what about using medical technology to deliver such things?

I submit to whatever the Church teaches about this, I'm just not really sure what it is

also, what about mechanical respiration? I suppose that would fall under the same category as dialysis? Although not all forms of dialysis are mechanical...